Procedure for appealing the Specialist Chambers’ ruling

The defense teams of the former Kosovo Liberation Army commanders have announced that they will appeal the judgment of conviction issued by the trial panel of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague on September 16.

Under the ruling, Hashim Thaçi and Jakup Krasniqi were each sentenced to 25 years in prison on four counts of the indictment. Kadri Veseli was sentenced to 18 years in prison, while Rexhep Selimi received a 13-year sentence.

The four former KLA commanders were found criminally responsible for war crimes, including unlawful or arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and unlawful killing. In the same judgment, the trial panel rejected the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office’s allegations of crimes against humanity.

Thaçi, Krasniqi, Veseli and Selimi have been held in detention in The Hague since November 2020.

The judgment may be challenged by both parties. The defense has the right to seek its complete reversal or a reduction of the sentences imposed on specific counts of the indictment, while the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office may seek harsher sentences.

The SPO welcomed the convictions but announced that it would thoroughly analyze the judgment, including the portion dismissing the charges of crimes against humanity.

The appeals process involves several prescribed steps and deadlines.

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulate that a party challenging the court’s decision, the sentence or both must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the delivery of the judgment. The document must list the grounds on which the appeal is based.

Afterward, the presiding judge of the three-member Court of Appeals panel may appoint one of the judges as a pre-appeal judge. The judge’s task is to address procedural matters and take the necessary steps to prepare the case through decisions, orders and directions. The pre-appeal judge must regularly keep the Appeals Panel informed, particularly when disputes arise over procedural matters.

Within 21 days of the filing of the notice of appeal, the presiding judge or pre-appeal judge convenes a conference at which matters related to the appeal are discussed.

The appellant must then file an appeal brief containing all arguments and legal authorities supporting the grounds for the challenge. The deadline for filing it is 60 days, but this is reduced to 30 days when the appeal concerns only the sentence imposed.

A response brief is then filed, through which the other party presents its legal arguments. The deadline is 30 days for the arguments and legal authorities, or 15 days if the matter is limited solely to the sentence, calculated from the filing of the appeal brief. This is followed by a reply brief, for which shorter deadlines apply: 15 days, or 10 days when the challenge concerns only the sentence.

Once these deadlines have passed, the Court of Appeals sets a hearing date only “if necessary,” as stated in the rules.

During the appeals process, the parties may also propose additional evidence. If it is admitted, the other party is given an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence.

When reaching its decision, the Appeals Panel considers both the material already in the case record and any newly admitted evidence.

Once the parties have completed their submissions, the panel meets to consider the case and issues a judgment based on the appeal record and any additional evidence that has been admitted.

The Court of Appeals may uphold, reverse or revise the first-instance decision, as well as order a retrial.

If the appeal is filed only by the individuals found guilty, the Appeals Panel may not issue a decision more severe than the one delivered at first instance.

The appeal judgment must be delivered within 60 days of the parties’ final submission. An extension of this deadline may be requested, but it may not exceed one month and must be justified.

The Law on the Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office recognizes three grounds for appealing first-instance decisions: an error on a question of law that invalidates the judgment, an error of fact that has caused a miscarriage of justice, or an error relating to the determination of the sentence.

If the Appeals Panel’s decision does not satisfy the parties, the case may first be taken to the Supreme Court and then to the Constitutional Court Chamber of the Specialist Chambers in The Hague.

The defense lawyers for former President Hashim Thaçi have stated that completing the appeals process could take years.

The trial panel’s decision

The trial panel found the four former KLA commanders guilty of war crimes 41 months after the trial began, while rejecting the charges of crimes against humanity.

In the trial panel’s assessment, the four accused, together with other leaders, sought Kosovo’s independence and the establishment of political and institutional control in an independent Kosovo.

The court found that, to achieve these objectives, they shared the view that certain individuals perceived as obstacles had to be “targeted,” “eliminated” or “neutralized.”

According to the judgment, this category included, among others, members or representatives of other political and military forces, especially individuals associated with the Democratic League of Kosovo and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kosovo, people considered close to the Serbian authorities, as well as members of the Roma and Serb communities.

When delivering the verdict, the trial panel stated that the common purpose had been implemented through killings, arrests and detentions without due process of law, physical and psychological abuse, intimidation and the use of what the judgment defines as “special warfare.”

According to the trial panel, former Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi, former parliamentary speakers Jakup Krasniqi and Kadri Veseli, and former lawmaker Rexhep Selimi contributed to carrying out this common purpose.

Regarding Thaçi, the judges found that he had played a key role both in formulating and implementing the common purpose. They also found that he had personally participated in several crimes, singling out the case of Behajdin Allaqi.

Regarding Veseli, the Specialist Chambers referred to his position as head of the KLA Intelligence Directorate. According to the trial panel’s findings, this body was responsible for identifying, monitoring and neutralizing individuals suspected of being “collaborators.” The Specialist Chambers found that Veseli had taken no measures to prevent, investigate or punish the crimes, despite being aware of them.

As for Selimi, the trial panel concluded that his contribution to implementing the common purpose had been substantial. However, the court emphasized that his position as the KLA’s inspector general gave him less authority over other KLA members compared with some of the other accused.

Regarding Krasniqi, who during the war was the KLA’s spokesperson and a member of its General Staff, the court found that he had used his position, leadership role, authority and status to implement the criminal aspects of the common purpose.